James H. Maples and Kathy Maples v. Johnny Partain and Teresa Partain ( 2005 )

                             NUMBER13-05-318-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

________________________________________________________   _________

JAMES H. MAPLES AND KATHY MAPLES,                  Appellants,

                                           v.

JOHNNY PARTAIN AND TERESA PARTAIN,                  Appellees.

_______________________________________________________   __________

              On appeal from County Court at Law No. One

                           of Hidalgo County, Texas.

_______________________________________________________ __  ________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, JAMES H. MAPLES AND KATHY MAPLES, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. One of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-29,530-A.  The clerk=s record was filed on May 23, 2005.  The reporter=s record was filed on September 9, 2005.  Appellants= brief was due on October 10, 2005.  To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely file a brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On October 28, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants= failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellants= failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 1st day of December, 2005.